Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
I watched a PBS Frontline special yesterday called Climate of Doubt.. about the disarray of the AGW lobby.
4 years ago AGW was being proclaimed by both parties as an imminent crisis requiring a radical response, worth incurring an immense economic cost. Now NOBODY in the political world is talking about it. A sustained and critical counterattack has punched holes in the chimera of fear mongering and psuedo science that has always been the substance of the scam.
Now PBS of course blamed this on a small group of right wing libertarians.. more concerned with big government than a real and 'proven' science.. as well of commercial interests associated with the petroleum industry. But something much more fundamental has occurred. The acceptance of the truth of AGW has fallen below 50%, which means it is broadly based and pan political.
It seems the old adage that you can fool ALL of the people SOME of the time.. BUT not ALL of the people, ALL of the time.. has come home to roost on the AGW fraudsters. And i'm pretty sure no broad consensus will ever believe them again.. fool me once.. shame on me.. fool me twice.. etc. etc. There just seems to be a realization that NONE of AGWs predictions have come to pass.. and are continually replaced with ever more calamitous theats to cover the failure of the previous ones.
I guess people just got tired of being slapped in the face by nonsense and scare tactics.. by a bunch of pagan, eco utopians with an agenda of de-population and de-industrialization.
4 years ago AGW was being proclaimed by both parties as an imminent crisis requiring a radical response, worth incurring an immense economic cost. Now NOBODY in the political world is talking about it. A sustained and critical counterattack has punched holes in the chimera of fear mongering and psuedo science that has always been the substance of the scam.
Now PBS of course blamed this on a small group of right wing libertarians.. more concerned with big government than a real and 'proven' science.. as well of commercial interests associated with the petroleum industry. But something much more fundamental has occurred. The acceptance of the truth of AGW has fallen below 50%, which means it is broadly based and pan political.
It seems the old adage that you can fool ALL of the people SOME of the time.. BUT not ALL of the people, ALL of the time.. has come home to roost on the AGW fraudsters. And i'm pretty sure no broad consensus will ever believe them again.. fool me once.. shame on me.. fool me twice.. etc. etc. There just seems to be a realization that NONE of AGWs predictions have come to pass.. and are continually replaced with ever more calamitous theats to cover the failure of the previous ones.
I guess people just got tired of being slapped in the face by nonsense and scare tactics.. by a bunch of pagan, eco utopians with an agenda of de-population and de-industrialization.
Last edited:
In fact, only one state high-temperature record has been broken in the last fifteen years, that in Ft. Pierre, South Dakota in 2006. High-temperature records for 23 of our 50 states date back to the decade of the 1930s, during worst-ever U.S. droughts in the period termed the “dust bowl.” Two-thirds of state high-temperature records were set prior to 1960, countering claims that the recent decade was “the warmest ever.”
I wouldn't expect WUWT readers to think the above is perfectly sensible. Math isn't exactly a strong area of understanding in that crowd.
Principia Scientific International Publishes Ground breaking Paper refuting the Greenhouse Gas Theory
Terri Jackson's Scientific Blog: Principia Scientific International Publishes Ground breaking Paper refuting the Greenhouse Gas Theory
small dead animals: The Sound Of Settled Science
[Principia Scientific International] are adamant that they have compellingly debunked what a generation of government climatologists incorrectly assumed ie that the flow of radiation in the Earth atmosphere is indicative of the flow of heat. PSI scientists confirm that the issue was never really about whether radiation moves freely about in the atmosphere (it does), the big question should have been whether once it has arrived at the surface: does it get more than one go at generating heat(ie" back radiation" heating)? Postma and his PSI colleagues say "no" because no such phenomenon as "back radiation heating" is cited in any thermodynamics textbooks nor has any such effect been measured empirically. Also all "back radiation" graphics have been removed from Nasa publications.
Related - THE world’s climate has cooled during 2011 and 2012, temperature data from Britain’s Met Office reveals — just before this year’s talks on cutting global greenhouse gas emissions.Terri Jackson's Scientific Blog: Principia Scientific International Publishes Ground breaking Paper refuting the Greenhouse Gas Theory
small dead animals: The Sound Of Settled Science
Oh, another denier that has confused what the Laws of Thermodynamics actually say...the first law states that under conditions of equilibrum, the rate of energy coming into the system is equal to the rate of energy leaving. Trapping radiation reduces the rate of energy leaving. This is perfectly consistent with the first law. As for the second law, if the greenhouse effect breaks the second law of thermodynamics (energy cannot be added to a warmer body by a cooler one), then so does the insulation in the walls of your home. So does the thermal survival blanket. The blanket and insulation are not adding. The energy comes from the warmer object. The furnace or your body, and the insulation simply stops some of it from escaping....
More to the point, there is observational evidence that there is an imbalance. Satellites measure it. They measure the cooling upper atmosphere (less radiation escaping to space) and they measure the difference in radiation directly.
Just more confusion, this time from a law grad.
We deserve better skeptics.
More to the point, there is observational evidence that there is an imbalance. Satellites measure it. They measure the cooling upper atmosphere (less radiation escaping to space) and they measure the difference in radiation directly.
Just more confusion, this time from a law grad.
We deserve better skeptics.
I would like to see their science, not their blogs and opinions. Anyone and their pet guppy can have a blog and an opinion.
ignored science fact.....
The sun is prettty damn good at warping the earth's magnetic field this shift in the magnetic field causes a subsequent shift in the jet stream.
I wonder if there has be any large changes to earth's magnetic field that isn't solar related over the past century?
The sun is prettty damn good at warping the earth's magnetic field this shift in the magnetic field causes a subsequent shift in the jet stream.
I wonder if there has be any large changes to earth's magnetic field that isn't solar related over the past century?
Global warming still stalled since 1998, WMO Doha figures show
'We're looking into this thing which is NOT HAPPENING'
Figures released by the UN's World Meteorological Organisation indicate that 2012 is set to be perhaps the ninth hottest globally since records began - but that planetary warming, which effectively stalled around 1998, has yet to resume at the levels seen in the 1980s and early 1990s.
The WMO figures are produced by averaging those from the three main climate databases: those of NASA, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the British one compiled jointly by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia.
The 2012 figure for the year so far stands at 14.45°C. If that were the figure for the full year, it would be cooler than 1998 (14.51°C) and most of the years since then (full listing from the Met Office here).
more
Global warming still stalled since 1998, WMO Doha figures show ? The Register
'We're looking into this thing which is NOT HAPPENING'
Figures released by the UN's World Meteorological Organisation indicate that 2012 is set to be perhaps the ninth hottest globally since records began - but that planetary warming, which effectively stalled around 1998, has yet to resume at the levels seen in the 1980s and early 1990s.
The WMO figures are produced by averaging those from the three main climate databases: those of NASA, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the British one compiled jointly by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia.
The 2012 figure for the year so far stands at 14.45°C. If that were the figure for the full year, it would be cooler than 1998 (14.51°C) and most of the years since then (full listing from the Met Office here).
more
Global warming still stalled since 1998, WMO Doha figures show ? The Register
Look... there is a lot of time invested in this cash cow. The UN is dying to get into the pockets of the West yet again. Don't think science is going to get in the way either.
Perhaps. So? Didja think GW was going to keep going till we and the planet all fried?
It always amazes me to think that some people have decided to declare war on the sun, the
wind and the rain clouds. Yes there is some climate change happening around the globe.
What many don't get is there has been change going on around the world since the first day
the earth officially formed. It will increase in pace as it will decrease in pace as the climate
balances itself on an ongoing basis.
In the fourteen hundreds we had it much cooler and it has since warmed and it will cool off
again. We are not going to change the climate or prevent what is happening we have to find
ways to adapted to the change and that is our greatest shortfall. Instead of debating whether
we have a problem and to what degree we should be asking what are we going to do if the
worst comes about? It may never come about but we still have to plan just like we would for
an earthquake.
wind and the rain clouds. Yes there is some climate change happening around the globe.
What many don't get is there has been change going on around the world since the first day
the earth officially formed. It will increase in pace as it will decrease in pace as the climate
balances itself on an ongoing basis.
In the fourteen hundreds we had it much cooler and it has since warmed and it will cool off
again. We are not going to change the climate or prevent what is happening we have to find
ways to adapted to the change and that is our greatest shortfall. Instead of debating whether
we have a problem and to what degree we should be asking what are we going to do if the
worst comes about? It may never come about but we still have to plan just like we would for
an earthquake.
For the most part, regular hoomins don't take anything seriously until verging on a disaster. Planning for a disaster isn't SOP with most.
1998 is the classic cherry pick and one of the zombie talking points for the so-called skeptic hucksters. There is nothing scientifically defensible about picking 1998, as the above graphic should make abundantly clear.
1998 is the classic cherry pick and one of the zombie talking points for the so-called skeptic hucksters. There is nothing scientifically defensible about picking 1998, as the above graphic should make abundantly clear.
Good thiing geomagnetism and solar flux doesn't **** with the jetstream or else we could see a funky redistribution of weather pattterns.
Hey, wait a second....
IT DOES!!!!
